The BBC television licence fee could be cut under the Government's public spending austerity drive, the Culture Secretary has warned.

Jeremy Hunt said the corporation has been responsible for 'extraordinary and outrageous' waste and needs to be aware of the country's 'very constrained financial situation'.He also said 'huge numbers' of things should change at the BBC and senior managers should not think that he has ruled out a cut in the annual licence fee.

Mr Hunt declared he could 'absolutely' see people paying the £145.50-a-year charge paying less next year next year following negotiations between Whitehall and the BBC.

Screams of 'aren't we wonderful, duckie' have already kicked in, but really a few slaps in the face are due and a reminder what 'Public Service' means.

People, and not just Jonathan Woss, are being paid TOO much money - which is OUR money of course. Upper salaries are too big. Not as big as commercial stations, then go and get a job there? How many of these wonderful mega bucks jobs are there anyway? Public Service should/used to mean adequate but modest.

How many new/fledgling presenters could be given a break for the money squandered on Woss??? How many TV stations do we usefully need? How many radio stations do we usefully need? How come the World Service is NOT generally available throughout Europe? How come the BBC cant tell time  as in if a programme is scheduled between say 11:00 and 11:30 it cant be guaranteed to be broadcast WITHIN that parameter??? Why are we bombarded with feckless gob-overs, pop-ups and pointless repetition of mong announcements???? Hello, the BBC Public Service are NOT commercial stations. If the programmers cant possibly schedule for a programme over running, then its CUT after the allocated time and continued on the Red Button for those interested??? Why cant the people who appear waving their arms about in front of a picture be allocated a Red Button channel  yes you DO have the technology.

In all, IMHO, we pay TOO much and have TOO little say in what we pay for!

About F**king time, almost 300 people sent out to cover the World Cup,A £3million studio shipped out to Capetown, only about 1000km from the English camp,just so Linneke and co would have a nice view of Table Mountain behind them, what a load of balls

I think it is out of order for non-payment of the subscription to a commercial organisation like the BBC to be the subject of criminal sanctions. It should be limited to the normal civil debt recovery process. Better still, scrap the licence fee and let the BBC live on its wits.

So who would benefit most from a reduction in BBC services?
Would that be the same person who put his weight behind the Tory election campaign and who has long portrayed PSBs as a form of unfair competition.

Click to expand...

??? If you mean the Murdoch empire, why not just say so? I pay ITV, C4, C5 etc NOTHING to show me programmes with paid advertising. Then again, if you like actually paying Murdoch, Virgin etc to show you paid advertising, then you keep spending your money how you like pal. This is about the BBC being truly accountable for what it spends and what it delivers to it's paymasters - us. I appreciate it raises some money by selling programmes to other broadcasters, but primarily it's funded by Joe Public even though it regards itself as the tail that wags the dog.

On the cost side the BBC went through a 'Big Bang' several years ago when large numbers of production staff were freelanced  i.e. sacked. Mostly the same people still did the same work, only now they were only engaged on a per job freelance basis. They were paid gross but, of course, were only paid when they worked - i.e. they were self-employed. The big money individuals however, remained among the good 'ole boys, (or good 'ole luvvies, oy vay), with associated perks and benefits.

Amalgamate Cbeebies and CBBC on the £25.5M budget and SAVE £50M instantly.

Whats the point of BBC3? 99% bollox and screams out as a station trying to be filled because its there and not because theres a place or need for it. However, dont scrap it just yet  commercialise it! Float it for a couple of years (only) to get it off the ground, and let it take adds and whatever to bring in revenue. If it bombs, dump it, but if it floats it may be a nice little earner FOR US, to fund licence paid services. BBC already do this to a certain extent with their NTL partnership  e.g. UKTV Yesterday. Yes I know its a bollox station by design, but it was reasonable when Bransons Virgin was behind it.

Sort out BBC2 and BBC4. BBC4 is in danger of becoming too luvvie and too gay! If BBC4 is to be luvvie and gay, make it luvvie, gay and sport. Shift the history/factual content to BBC2 and axe the nunce programmes from there like anything to do with buying, selling and cooking.

Asian radio is already gone  make sure you also sack the mongs who put it up in the first place.

I think it is out of order for non-payment of the subscription to a commercial organisation like the BBC to be the subject of criminal sanctions. It should be limited to the normal civil debt recovery process. Better still, scrap the licence fee and let the BBC live on its wits.

Click to expand...

God, please no. Scrap the licence fee and we will see a complete end to quality programmes being made. Only the BBC make fantastic science/nature/costume-drama programmes as a general rule. I completely agree with cutting waste and massive salaries in the BBC, I also agree that sending an outside broadcast unit per-channel to the same event should stop. I don't agree we should have commercial-only TV in the UK.

Take away the licence fee and you end up with the BBC showing the kind of ratings chasing shite that ITV have and you can forget about the majority of the good programmes that the BBC pushes out now.

And there'll be no escape from adverts either.

Sadly, I think the Tories are doing Murdoch a favour in return for Sky and the Scum supporting them in the election.

Click to expand...

That's what we have now, Strictly celebrity dancing on ice, cops on camera and other assorted rubbish, exactly the same as commercial TV. The BBC should cut away all the stuff that is (or can be) done by commercial TV and concentrate on it's core purpose.

There's nothing that BBC1 does now that couldn't be done (or bettered) by someone else, likewise with Radio 1,2 and 3.

It's not so much the "headline" costs like running BBC1 that are causing the outrage. It's cr@p like the senior manager who spent 5 grand on a weekend at the world cup final and charged it to expenses. Or the other one who runs up a grand a month on taxis.

Their crowning achievement was managing to send more staff to America (and, ffs, Kenya) than NBC to cover Saint Obama's triumph over the forces of darkness. The post election party overlooking Times Square with appropriately on message "celebrities" like Eddie Izzard flown in for good measure was just taking the pi$$.

It'll be hard to top that but I haven't seen their plans for Mandela's death yet. Will it be a month of Soviet style sombre music or a free, business class flight for every employee who wants to attend the funeral?

The BBC needs a kick in the reality zone. There really is no justification for a state funded broadcaster with hundreds of channels now available commercially. They should keep the core channels and put everything else on subscription when the country goes to Freeview next year. We'll see how many people will want to watch Captain Jack Harkness sh@gging his boyfriend every week when they have a choice about paying for it.

<snip>
The BBC needs a kick in the reality zone. There really is no justification for a state funded broadcaster with hundreds of channels now available commercially. They should keep the core channels and put everything else on subscription when the country goes to Freeview next year. We'll see how many people will want to watch Captain Jack Harkness sh@gging his boyfriend every week when they have a choice about paying for it.

Would that be the same person who put his weight behind the Tory election campaign and who has long portrayed PSBs as a form of unfair competition.

Click to expand...

Most tax-payers with half a working brain! My goodness, the Labour loving, overpaid 'luvvies' are active on this thread.

Scrap the whole thing and cast the rubbish costing billions, whilst supporting the rubbish that was 'Labour, into the scrapheap of broadcasting oblivion.

Hitler had a 'state broadcaster'; Stalin had a 'state broadcaster; doubtless Pol Pot had one as well. Thankfully our combination of the gang of filth named above - Brown G - has been deposed and thus, so should his broadcasting department!

....... put everything else on subscription when the country goes to Freeview next year.

Click to expand...

Must be where you live AM? We had Freeview from more or less when it came out. However, when a mate in darkest Surrey, circa the airfield, asked why they couldn't get Freeview as the ads kept telling them they could, they were told to naff-off and wait for the Hamshire transmitters were switched to digital??? All endorsing why the BBC are perceived as a wunch of bankers and full of shite - and overpaid autonomous shite at that.

That self-important freeloader who blew £5k on a weekend, don't sack them, sack the retard who signed-off their expenses.

This bunch of repellent oiks - the BBC - do this 'trick' constantly. Time and time again they advertise a rarity, a decent programme, but fail to show it in order that 'chavs' and twerps may continue to lounge in bars, guzzling booze!